About the Author Trained as a theoretical physicist in the schools of Heisenberg and Pauli, Jagdish Mehra is a distinguished historian of modern physics. His major work (with Helmut Rechenberg, six volumes, nine books) is The Historical Development of Quantum Theory, 1900-1942 (Springer-Verlag New York, 1982, 1987, 2000). In 1994 Professor Mehra published The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (Oxford University Press), and has just completed (with Kimball A. Milton) a companion volume, Climbing the Mountain: The Scientific Biography of julian Schwinger (Oxford, 2000). With Arthur Wightman of Princeton University, he has coedited The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner in eight volumes (Springer-Verlag, 1990-2000). Professor Mehra has held prestigious academic appointments in the USA and Europe, including the Regents’ Professorship at the University of California at Irvine and the UNESCO - Sir Julian Huxley Distinguished Professorship of History of Science in Trieste, Italy, and Paris, France. He lives in Houston, Texas, USA, where he is associated with the University of Houston."Reason, of course, is weak, when measured against its never-ending task." — Albert Einstein, 14 March 1879 — 18 April 1955EINSTEIN, PHYSICS AND REALITY Jagdish Mehra Ye World Scientific Singapore «New Jersey *London*Hong KongPublished by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. PO Box 128, Farrer Road, Singapore 912805 USA office: Suite 1B, 1060 Main Street, River Edge, NJ 07661 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. EINSTEIN, PHYSICS AND REALITY Copyright © 1999 by Jagdish Mehra All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher. For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher. ISBN 981-02-3913-0 Printed in Singapore by Uto-PrintContents Preface Introduction 1. The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ 1.1. The Bohr-Sommerfeld Atom 1.2. Physics and the Correspondence Principle 1.3. Quantum Mechanics 1.4, Wave Mechanics 1.5. The Interpretation of Microphysics 1.5.1. The Probability Interpretation of the Wave Function 1.5.2. The Uncertainty Relations 2. The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ 2.1. Einstein’s Early Readings 2.2. The Basic Principles in Einstein's Early Work v 10 14 16 17 20 25 26 29Contents 2.3. The Discussion of the Light-Quantum with Niels Bohr 2.4. Does Field Theory Present Possibilities for the Solution of the Quantum Problem? 2.4.1. A New Heuristic Viewpoint 2.4.2, Foundations of the Theory of Gravitation 2.4.3. Towards the Unified Field Theory . Letters on Wave Mechanics 3.1. The Real Schrédinger Equation 3.2. On the Uncertainty Relation 3.3. Are There Quantum Jumps? . Epistemological Discussion with Einstein: Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Reality Correctly? 4.1. The Fifth Solvay Conference (1927) 4.2. The Discussions on Epistemological Problems 4.3. Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity and the Copenhagen School . Is the Quantum-Theoretical Description of Nature Complete? 5.1. ‘Knowledge of Past and Future in Quantum Mechanics’ 5.2. The Completeness Problem 5.3. Physics and Reality 5.4. Quantum Mechanics and Reality vi 32 37 39 42 45 51 52 54 55 59 60 67 71 77 78 79 84 89Contents 6. Does God Play Dice? 6.1. The ‘Statistical Einstein’ 6.2. Einstein’s Last Discussion About Statistical Causality and Determinism 7. Mach contra Kant: Aspects of the Development of Einstein’s Natural Philosophy 7.1, The Heuristic Points of View 7.2. The Economy of Thought 7.3. ‘Theories Are Free Inventions of the Mind’ 7.4, Between Scylla and Charybdis 7.5. Presuppositions and Anticipations 7.6. Intuition and Experience 7.7. What Is Reality? 7.8. Description and Reality 7.9. Science and Hypothesis Notes and References vii 93 96 99 109 110 114 116 120 122 126 128 130 133 137Preface At a rather young age | wrote an essay with the pretentious title ‘Albert Einstein's Philosophy of Science and Life’ for an open essay competition of the International Council of YMCA’s. | gave a copy of it to Paul Arthur Schilpp (Editor of Albert Einstein: Philosopher- Scientist, Einstein’s 70th birthday volume), who was visiting my university to give a lecture; he forwarded it to Einstein. One fine morning | received an aerogram, marked ‘112 Mercer Street, Princeton, N.J.’; it contained a one-line message: ‘Dear Sir: Apart from too unwarranted praise | find your characterization of my convictions and personal traits quite veracious and showing psychological understanding. With kind greetings and wishes, sincerely yours, Albert Einstein [signed].’ (Einstein Archive.) Much more than the prize which | won for my essay, Einstein’s letter greatly excited and inspired me for a long time. In the course of time and my later work | met all of my scientific heroes, but Einstein had died on 18 April 1955, before | came to America; however, when | did so about a couple of years later, my first pilgrimage was to his house in Princeton, where Helen Dukas, his loyal secretary, received me and remained very kind and helpful during the following years. ixPreface In my scientific-historical work over the years | published a great deal on Einstein — on his life and his work on the quantum, statistical, and relativity theories — but | always regretted that | did not have a chance to meet him. There were some questions | would have liked to ask him! My work (with Helmut Rechenberg) The Historical Development of Quantum Theory (Springer-Verlag, six volumes) and my essay Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation contain much about the various aspects of Einstein’s work and views on most topics dealing with physics and the nature of physical reality. This slim volume, based on two lectures | gave in February 1991 at CERN (European Organization of Nuclear Research) and the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and again at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, and at UNESCO in Paris, France, in May 1991, touches upon certain aspects of Einstein’s views on physics and reality. Permission to publish the Einstein materials has been granted by the Albert Einstein Archives, the Jewish National & University Library, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, for which | am grateful. Houston, Texas Jagdish Mehra 15 February 1999Introduction In An Interview with Einstein, made two weeks before Einstein died in April 1955, the interviewer noted: ‘Einstein said that at the beginning of the century only a few scientists had been philosophically minded, but today physicists are almost all philosophers, although “they are apt to be bad philosophers.” He pointed as an example to logical positivism, which he felt was a kind of philosophy that came out of physics.’ In his later years, in particular those following the creation of ideal gas statistics in 1924-25, Einstein did not work actively in the field of quantum theory. He concentrated on the generalization of the field theory of gravitation and on efforts to unify the theories of general relativity and Maxwell’s electrodynamics. Moreover, he seemed to have taken a hostile point of view towards the developing and successful quantum mechanics. On many occasions Einstein acted as the principal opponent, in particular to the philosophical consequences that flowed from the new quantum theory. His epistemological discussions with Niels Bohr and Max Born might be counted among the greatest dialogues in the history of science, which raised some very fundamental questions. Yet Einstein could not agree with the answers he obtained. Not only did his later work on general relativityEinstein, Physics and Reality and unified field theory alienate him from most of the contemporary, especially the younger, physicists, but their criticism also concentrated on points which appeared to be secondary to Einstein — such as the questions of statistics and detailed determinacy. Thus he finally resigned himself to his critics with the following statement: ‘It is my opinion that the contemporary quantum theory, by means of certain definitely laid basic concepts, which on the whole have been taken over from classical mechanics, constitutes an optimum formulation of the conceptions. | believe, however, that this theory offers no useful point of departure for future development. This is the point at which my expectations depart most widely from that of contemporary physicists.’21 The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ Einstein, through his work on the ‘light-quantum,’ was one of the great founders of quantum theory. From the questions in which he became involved during his long association with the investigations of quantum phenomena, one notices that he never showed interest in detailed kinematical models — including the atomic models that had been fashionable — from the very beginning. Even in his very first papers, dealing with inferences drawn from the phenomena of capillarity, Einstein considered the forces between molecules and not their detailed structure.? The theory of atomic models, which had been pursued so vigorously by J. J. Thomson within the framework of classical theory and which had been initiated by Johannes Stark in an early quantum speculation and then pursued by Arthur Haas in his doctoral thesis, offered no attraction to Einstein, who was interested only in questions of principle. The existence of atoms and molecules was such a question of principle, as was the structure and geometry of space filled with gravitating matter, but not the detailed kinematics within atomic and molecular models. The attitude among British physicists, like J. J. Thomson and Ernest Rutherford and many others, had been quite different. The structure of matter offered such a wide variety of phenomena andEinstein, Physics and Reality effects that were worth being investigated, especially for future applications. There were the phenomena of radioactivity, though discovered in France by Henri Becquerel and the Curies, but intensively studied in England in the laboratories of William Ramsay and later Rutherford. To explain these phenomena a detailed knowledge of the constitution of matter (and that meant the structure of atoms and molecules) was necessary, since the phenomena were connected with specific chemical elements. Thus, in 1911, Rutherford in’ Manchester had developed the planetary model of atoms on the basis of his experiments on the scattering of alpha particles by atoms. Niels Bohr, who worked with Rutherford in Manchester from March 1912 to the end of July 1912, learned about Rutherford’s atomic model and accepted it. But how could such a model work within the framework of classical theory? Already in 1912 Bohr had become convinced that the quantum hypothesis should ensure the stability of the Rutherford model of (neutral) atoms: ‘This hypothesis is: that there, for any stable ring (any ring occurring in atoms), will be a definite ratio between the kinematic energy of an electron in the ring and the time of rotation. This hypothesis, for which there will be given no attempt at a mechanical foundation (as it seems hopeless), is chosen as the only one which seems to offer a possibility of an explanation of the whole group of experimental results, which gather about and seem to confirm concepts of the conceptions of the mechanics of the radiation as the ones proposed by Planck and Einstein.’ 1.1. The Bohr-Sommerfeld Atom In early 1913 Niels Bohr developed the theory of atomic spectra.> He started with the simplest atom, that of hydrogen, which consists of a positively charged nucleus and an electron circulating in different but stable orbits in accordance with the quantum number. Otherwise the classical laws of mechanics and electrostatics (for electrical 4The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ attraction) apply, but the rotation (or, in fact, the angular momentum) becomes ‘quantized.’ The laws of electrodynamics concerning, for instance the radiation, do not apply to these stable states. The radiation occurs only by transition between the states with a well- determined frequency given by the energy difference between the states and Planck’s law.® Bohr’s atomic model of the hydrogen atom could be generalized to hydrogen-like atoms (like the ionized helium) and at least qualitative consequences could be drawn also for multielectron molecules. Arnold Sommerfeld developed Bohr’s model further by including elliptical (Kepler) orbits.” In particular, he tried to generalize the quantization condition, his phase integral j pdq=nbh, (1) to several degrees of freedom. This fact did not play a role in the calculation of the hydrogen spectrum, for although we obtain two degrees of freedom in a Kepler ellipse (the motion of the electron occurs in a plane with variable distance from the atomic nucleus and the angle ¢), the quantum numbers n and n’ (due to the ‘quantization’ of the r and ¢ coordinate) appear only as a sum and the spectral lines do not depend on n and n’ separately. On the other hand, Sommerfeld calculated the relativistic mass corrections to the motion of electrons on elliptic orbits and found a fine structure in the lines corresponding to a sum of quantum numbers (n + n’). Further applications of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model were made to the Stark effect of spectral lines.° In this case, Paul Sophus Epstein showed that one could choose such quantization conditions as explain the empirically found splitting.? It was, however, necessary to restrict the possibility of transitions by ‘selection (Auswahl) principles.” The calculations of the Zeeman splitting of lines in a magnetic field turned out to be less successful. One could explain the normal Zeeman effect, but not the ‘anomalous’ Zeeman effect and theEinstein, Physics and Reality so-called Paschen-Back effect.'' Besides the difficulties which such a well-known phenomenon as the Zeeman effect posed to the Bohr- Sommerfeld atomic dynamics, further empirical facts could not be explained with the ‘old quantum theory,’ such as the properties of the hydrogen model.'? In particular, one could not calculate the intensities of spectral lines. The first attempt at solving this problem was made by Niels Bohr in his ‘correspondence principle,’ to which we shall turn in the next section. However, given the partial success of the atomic model of Bohr and Sommerfeld it was still difficult to decide which coordinates one should quantize. Epstein’? and Karl Schwarzschild’ solved this problem partially by referring to the Hamilton-Jacobi theory. And here Einstein entered the field with his only contribution to the ‘old quantum theory.’ He modified the result of Schwarzschild and Epstein such that the quantization condition could be formulated independently of the coordinate system. We should recall here the most important contribution that Paul Ehrenfest made to the quantum theory: his adiabatic hypothesis, which he first presented in 1913: ‘If a system is affected in a reversible adiabatic manner, allowed motions are transformed into (other) allowed motions.’’® Further ‘Each application of the adiabatic hypothesis forces us to look for “adiabatic invariants” — that is, for quantities which retain their values during the transformation of a mation f(a) into a motion B(a’) related automatically to the former.” Adiabatic invariants are the quantities aL for periodic motions, where T is the period and v the frequency of the motion, the cyclic momenta of systems which possess cyclic coordinates, etc. Now the adiabatic invariants can be related to the quantum conditions of Planck, Sommerfeld and others.'® The advantage of the adiabatic hypothesis is also apparent in the fact that it applies likewise to quasiperiodic motions. Ehrenfest concluded by saying: ‘The problem discussed in this paper shows, | hope, that the adiabatic hypothesis and the motion of adiabatic invariants are important for the extension 6The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ of the theory of quanta to still more general classes of motions; furthermore, they throw some light on the question: What conditions are necessary that Boltzmann’s relation between probability and entropy may remain valid? Hence it would be of great interest to develop a systematic method of finding adiabatic invariants for systems as generally as possible.’ 1.2. Physics and the Correspondence Principle In his paper entitled ‘On the Quantum Theory of Line Spectra,’ Niels Bohr wrote: ‘In spite of the great progress involved in these investigations [of Sommerfeld, Schwarzschild, Epstein, and Debye, cited above], many difficulties of fundamental nature remained unsolved, not only as regards the limited applicability of the methods used in calculating the frequencies of the spectrum of a given system, but especially as regards the question of the polarization and the intensity of the emitted spectral lines. These difficulties are ultimately connected with the radical departure from the ordinary ideas of mechanics and electrodynamics involved in the main principles of quantum theory, and with the fact that it has not been possible hitherto to replace these ideas by others forming an equally consistent and developed structure. Also, in this respect, however, great progress has recently been obtained by the work of Einstein?° and Ehrenfest.?! On this state of the theory it might therefore be of interest to make an attempt to discuss the different applications from a uniform point of view, and especially to consider the underlying assumptions in their relations to ordinary mechanics and electrodynamics.’?? In his paper ‘On the Quantum Theory of Line Spectra,’ whose first and second parts appeared in 1918 (the third was not published until 192273), Niels Bohr tried to connect the results from the ‘old quantum theory’ of atomic structure with those obtained by applying the classical theories of mechanics and electrodynamics. The reason for this approach might be found in the fact that the classical theories allow one to calculate quantities like radiation intensities, etc. 7Einstein, Physics and Reality However, if applied to atomic systems, the results turn out to be wrong. In the ‘old’ quantum-theoretical model of Bohr and Sommerfeld, one did not know how to compute these quantities. Now Bohr postulated a connection between the available classical results and not-yet-existent quantum-theoretical results for high quantum numbers. ‘We shall show, however, that the conditions which will be used to determine the values of the energy in the stationary states are of such a type that the frequencies calculated by (1) [that is, Planck’s energy—frequency relation], in the limit where the motions in successive stationary states comparatively differ very little from each other, will tend to coincide with the frequencies to be expected on the ordinary theory of radiation from the motion of the system in the stationary states. In order to obtain the necessary relation to the ordinary theory of radiation in the limit of slow vibrations, we are therefore led directly to certain conclusions about the probability of transition between two stationary states in this limit. This leads again to certain general considerations about the connection between the probability of a transition between any two stationary states and the motion of the system in these states, which will be shown to throw light on the question of polarization and intensity in the different lines of the spectrum of a given system.'*4 Bohr then made use of Ehrenfest’s adiabatic hypothesis, which he called the ‘principle of mechanical transformability,’ to prove his assertion that: ‘Although, of course, we cannot without a detailed theory of the mechanism of transition obtain an exact calculation of the latter probabilities, unless n is large, we may expect that also for small values of n the amplitude of the harmonic vibrations corresponding to a given value of 1 will in some way give a measure for the probability of a transition between two states for which n’—n” is equal to 7. Thus in general there will be a certain probability of an atomic system in a stationary state to pass spontaneously to any other state of smaller energy, but if for all motions of a given system the coefficients C [the Fourier coefficients in the expression for the intensity] are zero for certain values of +, 8The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ we are led to expect that no transition will be possible, for which n’—n” is equal to one of these values.’25 With these words Bohr first stated the ‘principle of correspondence,’ which would determine the application of quantum theory to atomic systems during the following seven years. It determined Bohr’s work on atomic spectra as well as the systematic guessing of results by others. R. Ladenburg was the first to apply, in 1921, the quantum correspondence considerations to the theory of dispersion.2¢ This theory was further developed by Hendrik Kramers.?” In a very explicit paper, ‘The Absorption of Radiation by Multiply Periodic Orbits, and {ts Relation to the Correspondence Principle and the Rayleigh—Jeans Law,’ J. H. Van Vleck extended Bohr’s ideas.?8 In this paper one also finds the correspondence derivation of Einstein's 1917 Ansatz for induced emission. Niels Bohr had cast some doubt whether this Ansatz was compatible with correspondence considerations. Finally, Hendrik Kramers and Werner Heisenberg completed the theory of dispersion.?? Another paper which came close to establishing the new theory was W. Kuhn’s article ‘On the Total Intensity of Absorption Lines Emanating from a Given State’3° and a paper by W. Thomas,3" which contained the Thomas—Kuhn sum rule, which was used at a crucial point in Heisenberg’s famous paper on the foundation of quantum mechanics.3? We conclude this section by making two remarks. First, the correspondence principle emerged in Bohr’s mind after he had studied Einstein’s 1916 paper on the absorption and emission coefficients?°: ‘Quite recently, however, Einstein has succeeded, on the basis of the assumptions | and I [that is, only stationary discrete states of an atomic system exist, and the energy of “unifrequentic” radiation is given by Planck’s quantum], to give a consistent and instructive deduction of Planck’s formula by introducing certain supplementary assumptions about the probability of transition of a system between two stationary states and about the manner in which this probability depends on the density of radiation of the 9Einstein, Physics and Reality corresponding frequency in the surrounding space, suggested from analogy with the ordinary theory of radiation. Einstein compares the emission and absorption of radiation of frequency v corresponding to a transition between two stationary states with the emission or absorption to be expected on ordinary electrodynamics for a system consisting of a particle executing harmonic vibrations of this frequency. In analogy with the fact that on the latter theory such a system will without external excitation emit a radiation of frequency v ... .33 Thus one might consider Einstein the father of the correspondence principle. In fact, the influence of his ideas on this paper of Bohr was rather large and Einstein’s spirit pervaded it regarding the simplicity of the arguments and the kind of general conclusions that were drawn by Bohr. No detailed kinematics disturbed the Einsteinian spirit of Bohr’s first correspondence considerations. Our second remark might stress the fact that with the correspondence principle physicists were in a position to calculate the quantities for which there was no place in Bohr and Sommerfeld’s original atomic model. Actually, in his famous Handbuch der Physik article (1926) on the old quantum theory, Pauli reported on (Heisenberg’s) nearly ‘always correct results from a completely wrong theory,’ using the physical (correspondence) intuition.34 When Pauli wrote his second review article (1933) on the new quantum mechanics, he stated that according to some unidentified sources ‘this article would certainly not be as good as the first [1926] one, but still the best in the field.’>4 1.3. Quantum Mechanics In his famous paper in which he invented the new quantum mechanics, Werner Heisenberg wrote: ‘It has become the practice to characterize this failure of the quantum-theoretical rules [given by the “old quantum theory”] as a deviation from classical mechanics. 10The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ This characterization has, however, little meaning when one realizes that the Einstein-Bohr frequency condition (which is valid in all cases) already represents such a complete departure from classical mechanics, or rather (using the viewpoint of wave theory) from the kinematics underlying this mechanics, that even for the simplest quantum-theoretical problems the validity of classical mechanics simply cannot be maintained. In this situation it seems sensible to discard all hope of observing hitherto unobservable quantities, such as the position and period of the electron, and to concede that the partial agreement of the quantum rules with experience is more or less fortuitous. Instead it seems more reasonable to try to establish a theoretical quantum mechanics, analogous to classical mechanics, but in which only relations between observable quantities occur.’ In July 1925 Heisenberg submitted his fundamental paper on quantum mechanics to Zeitschrift fiir Physik. His great idea was to retain the equation of motion or even further the Hamiltonian equations but to reinterpret the kinematical quantities or dynamical variables, like position, momentum, etc.*> The important question was which quantities are to be substituted as dynamical variables, and Heisenberg answered it by taking the Fourier coefficients q, of a periodic motion. These Fourier coefficients have to be replaced in a quantum theory by quantities with two indices, q,,n-2, Which enter into the Fourier expansion, and the exponential function has the form e'®**"_ This Ansatz satisfies the frequency condition of Bohr, Planck and Einstein, and Heisenberg could derive the sum rule of Thomas and Kuhn, h = 4am y{ lato, n + 1) on, n+) t=0 - lato, n- af a(n, n-1)}. (2) Applying Eq. (2) to the anharmonic oscillator, Heisenberg obtained the correct quantization rule, which is a half-integer in the case of zero anharmonicity.Einstein, Physics and Reality In the same paper, Heisenberg ‘derived’ a multiplication rule for the Fourier coefficients q: nner = ¥ dana In-cn—perrr ht. (3) a This step aroused Born’s imagination deeply and, between 15 and 19 July, he arrived at the following conclusion: ‘Heisenberg’s symbolic multiplication was nothing but the matrix calculus, well known to me since my student days from the lectures of Rosanes in Breslau. | found this by just simplifying the notation a little: instead of g(n, n +7)... | wrote g(n, m), and rewriting Heisenberg’s form of Bohr’s quantum conditions | recognized at once its formal significance. It meant that two matrix products pq and gp are not identical. | was familiar with the fact matrix multiplication is not commutative; therefore | was not too much puzzled by this result. Closer inspection showed that Heisenberg’s formula gave only the value of the diagonal elements (m = n) of the matrix pq — qp: it said that they were all equal and had the value h/2zi. But what were the other elements when m # n? ‘Here my own constructive work began. Repeating Heisenberg’s calculation in matrix notation, | soon convinced myself that the only reasonable value of the nondiagonal elements should be zero, and | wrote down the strange equation h Pq - 4P = 5 1, (4) Ai where 1 is the unit matrix. But this was only a guess, and my attempts to prove it failed.’3¢ ‘Quantum mechanics’ was completed in two papers from Born’s institute in Géttingen, namely: M. Born and P. Jordan, ‘On Quantum Mechanics” and M. Born, W. Heisenberg and P. Jordan, ‘On Quantum Mechanics 11.38 In these papers the matrix formulation and the simplest applications to physical problems, in particular the calculation of eigenvalues, was presented. Independently P. A. M. 12The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ Dirac in Cambridge developed the ideas of quantum mechanis in two contributions: ‘The Fundamental Equations of Quantum Mechanics’3? and ‘Quantum Mechanics and a Preliminary Investigation of the Hydrogen Atom.’“° in the first paper Dirac developed the operator formalism. At that time he only knew about Heisenberg’s first paper,?? i.e. the fundamental idea of noncommutativity of the product of quantum variables. In the second paper he extended his ‘algebraic laws’ and applied them to solve the hydrogen spectrum. However, five days later, Wolfgang Pauli — who had been very critical with respect to Born’s introduction of the matrix formalism*! — submitted a paper, ‘On the Hydrogen Spectrum from the Standpoint of the New Quantum Mechanics,’ to Zeitschrift fiir Physik, on 17 January 1926.4? In this paper the problem of the hydrogen atom was completely solved, though the calculations were very tedious. In a letter to Pauli on 3 November 1925, Heisenberg remarked about this work: ‘I need not assure you how much | am pleased with the new theory of the hydrogen spectrum.’#3 And finally, in another letter, dated 16 November 1925, he concluded: ‘How one really integrates you have demonstrated in your hydrogen paper and all the rest is formal nuisance [Kram].’44 The Heisenberg—Born-Jordan-Dirac approach to the new quantum theory, which we might call ‘algebraic’ according to Dirac, rested essentially on the fact that had been realized in Heisenberg’s initial fundamental paper: one can retain the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics (such as the equations of motion and the Hamiltonian equations) but one has to reinterpret the dynamical variables like position, momentum, etc. In the matrix scheme they became infinite quadratic matrices. One of the important properties which these quantities have (and which no quantity in classical theory exhibits) is that they do not commute with each other. Dirac could show that the quantum-mechanical commutation relations, like Eq. (4), followed from a generalization of the classical Poisson brackets,45 rather than from the commutation of the classical 13Einstein, Physics and Reality quantities. The physical measurement of a quantity — say, the momentum of an electron — reproduces one of the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix (according to Born, Heisenberg and Jordan) or operator (according to Dirac). These eigenvalues can be calculated by transformation to the ‘principal axes.’ The transformations, on the other hand, correspond to canonical transformations in classical mechanics. The Heisenberg—Born-Jordan—Dirac scheme presented a complete and consistent answer to all problems of microphysics. The physical understanding of the quantum-mechanical scheme, in early 1926, was still very much in the beginning stage, when a second independent approach to the same problems was developed by Erwin Schrédinger. This approach seemed to be rather complementary, if not contradictory, to the work of the ‘quantum mechanicians.’ 1.4, Wave Mechanics On 27 January 1926, ten days after the Zeitschrift fur Physik had received Pauli’s matrix-mechanical solution of the hydrogen atom, there arrived an article entitled ‘Quantization as a Problem of Proper Values (Part 1)’ at the Annalen der Physik. The author, Erwin Schrédinger, established in that paper that one could treat a quantum system starting from Louis de Broglie’s wave theory.*® His first attempts had been made by demonstrating that Einstein’s new gas theory‘ ‘can be based on the consideration of such stationary proper vibrations, to which the dispersion law of de Broglie’s phase waves has been applied.’4® Schrédinger represented the quantum systems and, as the first example, he chose the nonrelativistic and unperturbed hydrogen atom by an equation for the wave function y. This equation yields stationary states for the matter wave (here the electron wave) y, according to a calculation of its eigenvalues, Hy = Ey. (5) 14The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ Here H is the generalized Hamilton function which acts in Eq. (5) as a differential operator depending on the position variable q and a gradient with respect to this position, which replaces the momentum. Under suitable conditions for the wave function w,49 Schrédinger calculated from Eq. (5) the eigenvalues of the hydrogen spectrum.5° Schrédinger’s first paper appeared in Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) 79, 361 (1926). The second part of his paper, received on 23 February 1926, was in the same volume of the Annalen. In Part II, he went into the interpretation of his formalism and pursued the analogy presented by the wave theory of optics. ‘Undulatory’ or ‘wave’ mechanics is an extension of ‘geometrical’ (classical) mechanics, and the wave equation (5), which can be reformulated as 2 div grad y + = (E-V)w =0, (6) arises naturally from this analogy. Schrédinger immediately applied Eq. (6) to the harmonic oscillator and calculated both of the energy states F,, (n= 0, 1, ...) and the corresponding eigenfunctions, which, apart from a constant factor, turn out to be Hermite polynomials. Other examples treated in the second communication were the various rotators, which were done here consistently for the first time. In the following volume of Annalen der Physik, there appeared Schédinger’s third communication on ‘Quantization as a Problem of Proper Values’? and, finally, in the next volume the fourth communication was published.5? In the third communication, he developed the perturbation-theoretic approach to problems which are not exactly soluble, but are not far removed from them.54 He applied his new method immediately to the Stark effect and made the first attempt to calculate the intensities and polarizations of the Stark effect patterns. In his fourth communication, he extended the perturbation theory to cases which contain the time explicitly.>5 15Einstein, Physics and Reality We must mention here another paper of Schrédinger’s,*° received on 18 March 1926, in which he developed the ‘Relation Between the Quantum Mechanics of Heisenberg, Born and Jordan, and that of Mine.’ Although there were ‘extraordinary differences between the starting points and the concepts of Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics and the theory which has been designated as “undulatory” or “physical” mechanics, and has lately been described here, it is very strange that these two new theories agree with one another with regard to the known facts, where they differ from the old quantum theory.” And he proceeded: ‘In what follows the very intimate inner connection between Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics and my wave mechanics will be disclosed. From the formal mathematical standpoint one might well speak of the identity of the two theories.’ In particular, he proved: ‘The solution of the natural boundary-value problem of this differential equation [the Schrédinger equation] is completely equivalent to the solution of Heisenberg’s algebraic problem.’°? Schédinger’s work presented two aspects. Though he started from the opposite point of view with respect to the algebraic ‘quantum mechanicians,’ namely from a continuum theory, he presented the complete equivalence of the results. This had two consequences. First, one could now use the much more workable system of Schédinger’s differential equations to calculate actual eigenvalue problems, intensities, and so on. Second, and this aspect presented a great challenge to the Gottingen school: What was the meaning of the wave function in particular, and what did Schédinger’s continuum approach mean in general? Max Born was to give the answer to this challenge. He ‘interpreted’ the wave function and Heisenberg completed the quantum-mechanical description of Nature. 1.5. The Interpretation of Microphysics The understanding of microphysics was obtained in two distinct steps, each of which might today seem to us independently 16The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ satisfactory. First, Max Born analyzed the scattering and collision processes in terms of wave mechanics and arrived at the interpretation of the wave amplitude as a probability amplitude. By this step he obtained, according to his own judgment, a complete description of microscopic phenomena, and one could deduce an interpretation in terms of suitably restricted classical concepts. In particular, a specific case of the more general uncertainty relations follows from it. The uncertainty relations were derived by Werner Heisenberg, who started from matrix mechanics and the transformation theory of Dirac. This form of quantum theory is less conducive to calculations than is SchGdinger’s wave mechanics, although in some sense it is more fundamental conceptually. Finally, Niels Bohr developed the philosophical language to talk about phenomena in microphysics, at the center of which stands the principle of complementarity. It seemed to Bohr that this language was applicable to a wider range of phenomena than those of atomic mechanics, namely all those in which natural contradictions arise when they are dealt with in the ordinary classical and macroscopic language. 1.5.1. The Probability Interpretation of the Wave Function Max Born wrote: ‘The matrix form: of quantum mechanics founded by Heisenberg and developed by him together with Jordan and the author of this report, starts from the idea that an exact description of the phenomena in space and time is not possible at all and therefore is satisfied in obtaining relations between observable quantities, which can be interpreted only in the classical limit as properties of motions. Schédinger, on the other hand, seems to ascribe to the waves which he considers with de Broglie as the carriers of atomic processes a reality of the same kind as light waves do possess; he tries “to construct wave groups which have small extensions in all directions” and which should apparently represent the moving particle directly. 17Einstein, Physics and Reality ‘None of these concepts seem to me to be satisfactory. | shall try at this place to give a third interpretation and to test its usefulness with scattering phenomena. For this purpose | shall start with a remark of Einstein’s on the relation between wave fields and light- quanta; he said in effect that waves exist only to guide the path of the corpuscular light-quanta and he talked in that sense about a “ghost field.” This determines the probability that a light-quantum which carries energy and momentum follows a certain path; to the field, however, no energy and no momentum belongs.’ In four papers, Born developed in the year 1926 the quantum theory of scattering processes. In the first, which he wrote together with Norbert Wiener during his visit to the United States, he extended the formulation of quantum laws to nonperiodic phenomena.*" Since this paper was submitted on 5 January 1926, i.e. before Schrédinger sent his first communication to Annalen der Physik, Born and Wiener did not know about the wave-mechanical formulation but extended the matrix representation of quantum mechanics to the more general representation by linear operators. This operator formalism, which was similar to the one developed in detail by Pau! Dirac, could then also describe nonperiodic systems. Evidently, Born and Wiener were also not aware of the prior publications of P. A. M. Dirac. By the time of his second paper, submitted on 25 June, Born had learned about Schrédinger’s wave mechanics and he used it to formulate the scattering problem.®? He wrote: ‘Many people assume that the problem of transitions cannot be treated by the quantum mechanics in the form obtained thus far, and that one requires new concepts to do that. | myself arrived, impressed by the completeness of the logical structure of quantum mechanics, at the conjecture that the theory must be complete and should also be able to deal with the problem of transitions. | believe that | have now succeeded in giving a proof.’6 For all practical purposes Schrédinger’s wave mechanics is appropriate. ‘From the different forms of the theory, only the one due to Schrédinger is applicable and therefore | would like to consider 18The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ it as the deepest formulation of quantum laws.® The reason was that far from the point of impact and far after the impact the wave description — say, by plane waves — is particularly simple. But if the incident wave is a plane wave, the outgoing wave is a superposition of plane waves with coefficients or amplitudes ®,,,(a, 8, y). Born noted that ‘if one tries to interpret this result in t the particle language then only one interpretation is possible: ® q(t, B, y) determines the probability for the fact that the electron t coming from the z-direction is scattered into the direction given by a, b, g (with the phase change given by d), and its energy t increases by a quantum hy2,, obtained from the atomic energy.’ At this point, Born appended an important footnote: ‘Remark added in proof: A more accurate consideration demonstrates that the probability is proportional to the square of the quantity F.’65 Schédinger’s wave mechanics therefore answers the question for the effect from an impact in a well-defined sense; but this answer does not consist in a causal relation. One does not obtain an answer to the question ‘What is the state after collision?’ but only to the question ‘How probable is a given effect of the collision?’ The whole question of determinacy, Born noted, followed from here. He denied the existence of determinacy in the microscopic world. In his third paper, submitted on 21 July 1926, Born gave a full account of his new theory of scattering processes and the physical interpretation of the wave function. In this paper, entitled ‘The Quantum Mechanics of Scattering Processes,’ Born treated aperiodic motions in general.6” From the free motion of a wave packet, he derived the fact that JE Wwoofax = lef Ap (7) ‘Thus one obtains the result that a cell of linear dimension Ax =1 and of extension in momentum of Ap=h has the weight 1, in agreement with the Ansatz of Sackur and Tetrode, which proved to 19Einstein, Physics and Reality be true in many cases by experience, and that Icky is the frequency for a motion with momentum p = h/2x k.’°8 This remark already came very close to the uncetainty relation and, in fact, we shall observe a similar step in Heisenberg’s considerations. Born concluded his paper by noting: ‘But it remains for anbody who is not content [with this indeterministic interpretation] to assume that further parameters exist which have not yet been introduced into the theory, which fully determine the individual result. In classical mechanics these parameters are the “phases” of the motion, e.g., the coordinates of the particles at a certain time. It seemed to me at first improbable that one can introduce quantities which correspond to these phases without forcing them into the new theory, but [Jakov] Frenkel has told me that this is perhaps possible. Be that as it may, this possibility would not change the practical indeterminacy of the scattering processes, since one cannot give the values for the phases, and the results from this theory would be expressed in the same formulae as given “without phases” proposed here.’ In the last paper of 1926, Born finally generalized Ehrenfest’s adiabatic hypothesis for scattering processes.’° 1.5.2. The Uncertainty Relations As Heisenberg noted: ‘The quantum mechanics resulted from the attempt to abandon the usual kinematic concepts and replacing them by relations between concrete experimentally observable quantities. However, since we have succeeded, the mathematical scheme of quantum mechanics need not be revised. A revision of the space-time geometry for small distances and time intervals would also not be necessary since we may approximate the classical laws arbitrarily closely by choosing large enough masses in the quantum- mechanical laws. However, from the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics it seems apparent that the kinematical and 20The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ mechanical concepts have to be revised. Given a definite mass m, we are used to talking about position and velocity of its center of mass. In quantum mechanics, however, the relation Pq - gp = h/2xi must hold between mass, position and velocity. Therefore, we have to be careful about the uncritical application of the words “position” and “velocity.” ‘7! In spring 1927, Werner Heisenberg submitted a paper to Zeitschrift fur Physik which, according to Wolfgang Pauli, finally ‘brought daylight into quantum mechanics.’”? Heisenberg described the origin of the ideas which completed the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics in his article ‘Memories of the Time of Development of Quantum Mechanics’ in the memorial volume of Wolfgang Pauli.73 He wrote: ‘At that time, in fall 1926 the uncertainty relations gained form in the exchange of letters between Pauli and myself. In a letter dated 28 October 1926 the sentence was contained: “In the wave picture the equation pq — qp = —-ih always expresses the fact that it makes no sense to talk about a monochromatic wave at a definite instant of time (or in a very short time interval). It also does not make sense to talk about the position of a corpuscle of a definite velocity. If one does not take velocity and position too accurately, one can make good sense of it.” ’”4 In his reply, Pauli repeated the old argument about dividing the phase space into cells of magnitude b3 for three degrees of freedom and that one cannot determine a state of a particle more accurately than by assigning the phase cell. However, this was not enough, and Heisenberg replied: ‘If you are able to assume the exact position of the walls of the phase cells and can determine the number of particles in each cell, then could you not obtain the number of atoms in an arbitrarily small cell by choosing its walls close to the original position? Then, does it make sense physically to choose definite cell walls? Perhaps we may only assume the relative position of two cell walls, but not the position of a definite cell wall.’”5 Three months of intensive discussions between Heisenberg and Bohr passed before Heisenberg sent Pauli 21Einstein, Physics and Reality a 14-page letter, which almost held the content of his later paper ‘On the Perceptual Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics.’ In this paper Heisenberg developed the uncertainty relations for specific examples, like the Compton effect, by using Dirac’s transformation theory. He obtained the famous relation Ap.Aqe ~h, (8) for the accuracy Ap, and Aq,, with which one can determine simultaneously the momentum p, and the position q, of a microscopic particle. Heisenberg recalled the following about this paper: ‘This paper, a few days later, | then also sent to Pauli for his critique, so that | could show Bohr the paper already refereed by Pauli when he reurned [from his vacation in Norway]. However, Bohr did not completely agree with certain points of this paper; thus it was sent, not before some time had elapsed, with important improvements for publication. Meanwhile Bohr had also developed the concept of complementarity, conceived by himself, so that the physical content of quantum theory was clearly apparent in the same manner from different starting points. If differences in the concepts still existed, then they referred to different starting points or to a different language but not anymore to the physical interpretation of the theory. Concerning this interpretation one had now gained complete clarity, and Pauli was the first one outside the inner Copenhagen circle who agreed without reservation with the new interpretation of the formulation to which he had contributed so greatly.’7° The first public presentation of the new interpretation was due to Niels Bohr, who talked about ‘The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory’ at the International Congress of Physicists in Como in September 1927.77 In his talk, Bohr actually turned the physical interpretation into the philosphical language of complementarity. The particle and the wave descriptions of matter, according to him, formed two complementary but not contradictory 22The ‘Non-Einsteinian Quantum Theory’ aspects of the same microphysical object, and he chose as the first example the uncertainty relation between the energy and time of a wave motion, At AE 2h, (9) which arises from the ‘classical’ equation AtAv 21. (v = frequency). (10) Then he dealt with the measurement process in quantum theory. Heisenberg had expressed the impossibility of arbitrarily accurate simultaneous measurements of conjugate quantities like the position x and the momentum p, of a microscopic particle. Bohr pointed out that the essence was that ‘A closer investigation of the possibilties of definition would still seem necessary in order to bring out the general complementary character of the description. Indeed, a discontinuous change of energy and momentum during observation [e.g. of the position] could not prevent us from ascribing accurate values to the space-time coordinates, as well as to the momentum— energy components before and after the [measurement] process. The reciprocal uncertainty which always affects the values of these quantities is, as will be clear from the preceding analysis, essentially an outcome of limited accuracy with which changes in energy and momentum can be defined, when the wave-fields used for the determination of the space-time coordinates of the particle are sufficiently small.’”8 After considering several examples, Bohr concluded: ‘The experimental devices — like opening and closing the apertures, etc. — seen to permit only conclusions regarding the space-time extension of the associated wave-fields.’”? About observations, in general, Bohr remarked: ‘Strictly speaking, the idea of observation belongs to the causal space-time way of description. Due to the general character of the [uncertainty] relation, however, this idea can be consistently utilized also in the quantum theory, if only the uncertainty expressed through this relation is taken into 23Einstein, Physics and Reality account... . Indeed, it follows from the above considerations that the measurement of the positional coordinates of a particle is accompanied not only by a finite change in the dynamical variables, but also the fixation of its position means a complete rupture in the causal description of its dynamical behavior, while the determination of its momentum always implies a gap in the knowledge of its spatial propagation. Just this situation brings out most strikingly the complementary character of atomic phenomena which appears as an inevitable consequence of the contrast between the quantum postulate and the distinction between object and the agency of measurement, inherent in our very idea of observation.’®° Bohr then turned to a consideration of matrix and wave mechanics. ‘In fact, wave mechanics, just as the matrix theory, on this vew represents a symbolic transcription of the problem of motion of classical mechanics adapted to the requirements of quantum theory and only to be interpreted by an explicit use of the quantum postulate. indeed, the two formulations of the interaction problem might be said to be complementary in the same sense as the wave and particle idea in the description of the free individual.8’ From this remark there arose Bohr’s general complementary philosophy, which properly allowed one to deal with the phenomena in microphysics. Though Bohr did not participate in the formulation of the new quantum theory, and especially did not apply it to treat any example or unsolved problem, because of his deep insight he became the representative of the young generation around Heisenberg. At the fifth Solvay Conference in Brussels in 1927, it was Bohr who defended the new quantum theory against the attacks of ‘conservative’ scientists, in particular against the vigorous and unceasing efforts of Albert Einstein, who constructed examples that should contradict the new theory and the philosophical consequences drawn from it. 242 ‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ In a lecture, ‘On the Present Crisis of Theoretical Physics,’ delivered during a visit to Japan in 1922, Albert Einstein said: ‘Many times one has remarked that in the present state of knowledge the representation of the laws of Nature by differential equations seems to be dubious... . To cope with the quantum relations a new mathematical language seems to be necessary; at any rate it seems to be without sense to express the laws by a combination of differential laws and integral conditions as we do today. Once more the foundations of theoretical physics are shaken and experience calls for a higher level to express the laws. When shall we receive the saving idea? Happy will be those who might live to see it. In the early 1920s, Einstein talked on several occasions about a crisis in theoretical physics.83 Clearly, there was the existence of the energy quantum and new quantum effects that needed to be explained. However, by that time all the available quantum effects had been verified, including the corpuscular nature of the light- quantum. Louis de Broglie had further successfully proposed the hypothesis that all material particles possess a wave nature, thus putting Einstein’s ‘heuristic viewpoint’ on a general level. But, in principle, no theory was available that could claim to be complete 25Einstein, Physics and Reality and be able to describe the laws of the atoms and of radiation consistently. Then, in 1924, S. N. Bose proposed a statistical method which could deal with both (corpuscular and wave) natures of the light- quantum (photon), and Einstein was able to extend this statistics to the quantum theory of ideal gases. With this method, for the first time, quantum effects could be described entirely correctly and quantitatively. Unfortunately, the only example besides the blackbody radiation, the case of ideal gases, did not offer at that time the possibility of verifying Einstein’s theory quantitatively. But Einstein was certain that his ideal gas theory described real phenomena. Still, it did not provide an answer as to the nature and meaning of the quantum for which both Einstein and Planck had been looking. The new theory had been developed on the basis of rather different ideas than the ones Einstein liked in those days. And though he sympathized with Schrédinger’s approach in many respects because the wave seemed to represent the reality far better than the transformation matrices of the Géttingen-Cambridge school, he did not consider it as the final solution either. The Einstein of the late 1920s became for the first time an authority who was at variance with the progressive ideas of the younger generation. In his discussions with Niels Bohr and (later on) with Max Born, Einstein criticized the results and interpretation of the new quantum theory. At the same time he seemed to abandon his pragmatic position which had led him in earlier years to so many fruitful points of view and to form a dogmatic philosophy. It would seem to be worthwhile, as an introduction to the new period in Einstein’s work concerning the quantum theory, to consider the development of his philosophical ideas in greater detail. 2.1. Einstein’s Early Readings As he recalled later in life, ‘At the age of 12-16 | familiarized myself with the elements of mathematics together with the principles of 26‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ differential and integral calculus. In doing so | had the good fortune of hitting upon books which were not too particular in their logical rigor, but which made up for this by permitting the main thoughts to stand out clearly and synoptically. This occupation was, on the whole, truly fascinating; climaxes were reached whose impression could easily compete with that of elementary geometry — the basic idea of analytical geometry, the infinite series, the concepts of differential and integral calculus. | also had the good fortune of getting to know the essential results and methods of the entire field of natural sciences in an excellent popular exposition, which limited itself almost throughout to qualitative aspects (Bernstein’s Popular Books on Natural Science, a work of 5 or 6 volumes), a work which | read with breathless attention. | had also already studied some theoretical physics when, at the age of 17, | entered the Polytechnic Institute of Zurich [ETH] as a student of mathematics and physics.’ The young Einstein used much of his time to study important books on physics and science in general. He read the works of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann and Hertz.®5 In 1897, Michele Besso, a more advanced student at the ETH and a friend of Einstein’s, had introduced him to Ernst Mach’s book The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development.®® Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical Notes: ‘We must not be surprised, therefore, that, so to speak, all physicists of the last century saw in classical mechanics a firm and final foundation for all physics, yes, indeed, for all natural science, and that they never grew tired in their attempts to base Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, which, in the meantime, was slowly beginning to win out, upon mechanics as well. Even Maxwell and H. Hertz, who in retrospect appear as those who demolished the faith in mechanics as the final basis of all physical thinking, in their conscious thinking adhered throughout to mechanics as the secure basis of physics. It was Ernst Mach who, in his History of Mechanics, shook this dogmatic faith; this book exercised a profound influence upon me in this regard while | was a student. | see Mach’s greatness in his incorruptible skepticism 27Einstein, Physics and Reality and independence; in my younger years, however, Mach’s epistemological position also influenced me very greatly, a position which today appears to me to be essentially untenable.’8” In this book Mach examined the historical development of mechanics. In it, the main role was played by a critical review of Newton’s ideas, in particular the concepts of mass and absolute space and time. With respect to the concept of mass, Mach formulated a new definition starting from Newton's third law of mechanics which allowed one to measure masses. By this derivation he initiated a method which was later on elaborated by P. W. Bridgman in his theory of operationalism.®® With respect to the concepts of absolute space and time, Mach rejected them because they were not observable. In a theory, only those concepts should play a role that are observable, at least potentially. Thus Mach became one of the founders of positivism. Further on, Mach stated another aspect of his philosophy of science in the following sentence: ‘Science, itself, therefore, may be regarded as a minimal problem, consisting of the completest possible treatment of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought.’®9.9° Not only did Mach influence Einstein, but his philosophy influenced the so-called Vienna Circle, of which, for example Philip Frank, was a member. Among the more important adherents were Ludwig Wittgenstein and R. Carnap. It is interesting that Mach influenced Einstein in a way which he did not accept himself in his later years. Following Mach’s criticism of absolute space and time, Einstein developed in 1905 a theory which derived these concepts and served as a new basis of mechanics: the special theory of relativity. Mach had written: ‘I do not consider the Newtonian principles as completed and perfect; yet, in my old age, | can accept the theory of relativity as little as | can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogma.’?! This brings us to another point — Mach’s rejection of atomism. ‘The atomic theory plays a part in physics similar to that of certain 28‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ auxiliary concepts in mathematics; it is a mathematical model for facilitating the mental reproduction of facts.’9? It might have been essentially these statements with respect to the useful and proved ‘heuristic viewpoints’ as expressed by the principle of relativity and the assumption of the molecular structure of matter which brought Einstein later to the recognition that Mach’s philosophical points of view were ‘essentially untenable.’ In fact, in 1905, Einstein called his theories of special relativity and light-quanta ‘heuristic viewpoints.’ By the year 1910 the consequences from the special theory of relativity and from the atomistic structure of matter had been proved experimentally, and they had become accepted theories, on which basis one could speculate further. Mach denied that such a speculation would be useful; Einstein, on the other hand, based his work on such speculations and criticized Mach: ‘For he did place in the correct light the essentially constructive and speculative nature of thought and more especially scientific thought; in consequence of which he condemned on precisely those points where its constructive-speculative character unconcealably comes to light, as for example in the kinetic atomic theory.’ 2.2. The Basic Principles in Einstein’s Early Work Einstein’s first two papers were concerned with consequences from thermodynamics. The first published paper presented a specific application to the phenomena of capillarity, and in the second paper a study of electric potential differences between metals and solutions of their dissociated salts was dealt with. The aim of these two papers was, however, to obtain the law of molecular attraction, perhaps in a similar simple form to the law of gravitational attraction. We may consider these attempts the first indication of Einstein’s search for a unified theory. After these two ‘worthless beginner’s works’ (as he described them), Einstein turned to other topics suggested to him by his reading of Boltzmann's Lectures on Gas Theory. He completed Boltzmann's 29Einstein, Physics and Reality foundations of statistical thermodynamics, in many respects similar to the results achieved by Josiah Willard Gibbs (with whose work in this field he became familiar only later on). The consequences from this work, the fluctuation phenomena as present in the Brownian motion and light-quanta, led to the proof of the molecular hypothesis, in particular through the experiemental work of Jean Perrin. In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein recalled: ‘The most fascinating subject at the time that | was a student was Maxwell's theory. What made this theory appear revolutionary was the transition from forces at a distance to fields as fundamental variables... . ‘What rendered the insight into the essence of electromagnetic theory so much more difficult at that time was the following peculiar situation. Electric or magnetic “field intensities” and “displacements” were treated as equally elementary variables, empty space as a special instance of a dielectric body. Matter appeared as the bearer of the field, not space. By this it was implied that the carrier of the field could have velocity, and this was naturally to apply to the “vacuum” (aether) also. Hertz’s electrodynamics of moving bodies rests entirely upon this fundamental attitude. ‘It was the great merit of [Hendrik Antoon] Lorentz that he brought about a change here in a convincing fashion. In principle a field exists, according to him, only in empty space. Matter — considered as atoms — is the only seat of electric charges; between the material particles there is empty space, the seat of electromagnetic field, which is created by the position and velocity of point charges which are located on the material particles... . ‘If one views this phase of the development of theory critically, one is struck by the daulism which lies in the fact that the material point in Newton’s sense and the field as continuum are used as elementary concepts side by side. Kinetic energy and field energy appear as essentially different things. This appears all the more unsatisfactory inasmuch as, according to Maxwell's theory, the magnetic field of a moving electric charge represents inertia, Why 30‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ not then fotal inertia? Then only field-energy would be left, and the particle would be merely an area of special density of field-energy. In that case one could hope to deduce the concept of the mass- point together with the equations of motion of the particles from the field equations — the disturbing dualism would have been removed. ‘H. A. Lorentz knew this very well. However, Maxwell’s equations did not permit the derivations of the equilibrium of the electricity which constitutes a particle. Only other, nonlinear field equations could possibly accomplish such a thing. But no method existed by which this kind of field equations could be discovered without deteriorating into adventurous arbitrariness. In any case, one could believe that it would be possible by and by to find a new and secure foundation for all of physics upon the path which had been successfully begun by Faraday and Maxwell.’94 It was Einstein’s specific contribution to connect this problem in the foundation of electrodynamics of matter to the other problem discovered by Max Planck in 1900 — the existence of elementary quanta of energy in the theory of radiation. In his first public lecture as a physicist, Einstein stated at Salzburg in 1909: ‘The theory of relativity has changed our concepts about the nature of light insofar as it considers light not as the consequence of the states of hypothetical aether but as something existing by itself similar to matter. It [light] shares further, according to this theory, the property with a corpuscular theory of light to transmit inert mass from the absorbing to the emitting bodies. Concerning our concepts of the structure of radiation, in particular of the distribution of energy within the radiation space, the theory of relativity did not change anything. | hold, however, the opinion that we stand with respect to this aspect of the problem at the beginning of a development which cannot yet be overlooked but is most remarkable.’ Einstein then proceeded by remarking: ‘The constitution of radiation seems, therefore, to be different from that which follows from our undulatory theory.’ In particular the undulatory theory 31Einstein, Physics and Reality could not explain the elementary phenomena of the creation and transmutation of light. And he advanced the following prediction: ‘Be that as it may, the concept seems to me to be most natural, that the existence of electromagnetic fields of light is connected as much to singular points as the existence of electrostatic fields to the electron theory. It cannot be excluded that in such a theory the total energy of the electromagnetic field might be regarded as localized in those singularities, exactly as in the old action-at-a-distance theory. For instance, | consider each such singular point as being surrounded by a field of force, which possesses essentially the character of a plane wave, whose amplitude decreases with the distance from the singular point. If many such singularities are present in distances which are small with respect to the range of the field of force of a singular point, then the fields of force will superpose and form in total an undulatory field of force which does deviate perhaps only a little from the undulatory field in the sense of the present electromagnetic theory of light. That one cannot consider such a picture as valuable as long as it does not lead to an exact theory need not be emphasized particularly. | just wanted to illustrate by it briefly the fact that both structural characteristics (undulatory structure and quantum structure) which are connected with the radiation theory according to Planck's law should not be considered as being incompatible.’9” 2.3. The Discussion of the Light-Quantum with Niels Bohr John Clarke Slater, a young physicist from Harvard — where he took his Ph.D., then traveled on a fellowship first to Cambridge, England, and from there to Copenhagen, where he worked on the theory of radiation, making an attempt to bridge the dual aspects of light (wave and particle pictures) — wrote in an article published in Nature: ‘In the attempt to give a theoretical interpretation of the mechanism of interaction between radiation and matter, two 32‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ apparently contradictory aspects of this mechanism have been disclosed. On the one hand, the phenomena of interference, on which the action of all optical instruments essentially depends, claim an aspect of continuity of the same character as that involved in the wave theory of light, especially developed on the basis of the laws of classical electrodynamics. On the other hand, the exchange of energy and momentum between matter and radiation, on which the observation of optical phenomena ultimately depends, claims discontinuous features. These have even led to the introduction of the theory of light-quanta, which, in its extreme form, denies the wave contribution of light. At the present state of science it does not seem possible to avoid the formal character of the quantum theory which is shown by the fact that the interpretation of atomic phenomena does not involve a description of the mechanism of the discontinuous processes, which in the quantum theory of spectra are designated as transitions between stationary states of the atom. On the correspondence principle it seems nevertheless possible, as it will be attempted to show in this paper, to arrive at a consistent description of optical phenomena by connecting the discontinuous effects occurring in atoms with the continuous radiation field in a somewhat different manner from what is usually done. The essentially new assumption introduced in §2 that the atom, even before a process of transition between two stationary states takes place, is capable of communication with distant atoms through a virtual radiation field, is due to Slater.’% Originally, Slater’s endeavor had been to obtain in this manner a harmony between the physical pictures of the electromagnetic theory of light and the theory of light-quanta by coupling transitions of emission and absorption of communicating atoms together in pairs. It was pointed out by Hendrik Kramers, however, ‘that instead of suggesting an intimate coupling between these processes, the idea just mentioned leads rather to the assumption of a greater independence between transition processes in distant atoms than 33Einstein, Physics and Reality hitherto perceived. The present paper is the result of a mutual discussion between the authors [Bohr, Kramers and Slater] concerning the possible importance of these assumptions for the elaboration of the quantum theory, and may in various respects be considered as a supplement to the first part of a recent treatise by Bohr,°? dealing with the principles of the quantum theory, in which several of the problems dealt with here are treated more fully./10° In the paper ‘The Quantum Theory of Radiation,’ written jointly by Bohr, Kramers and Slater, the authors attempted to find a unique description of microscopic phenomena at the expense of renouncing the principle of conservation of energy and momentum: ‘As regards the occurrence of transitions, which is the essential feature of the quantum theory, we abandon on the other hand any attempt at a causal connection between the transitions in distant atoms, and especially a direct application of the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, so characteristic for the classical theories." And they proceeded to claim that there is as yet no experimental evidence to test these ideas. Of course, the Compton effect had been discovered experimentally and described successfully by the concept of the light-quanta of Einstein, using strict energy and momentum conservation in elementary processes.'°? But Bohr and his collaborators claimed that one could represent these results also by means of a statistical conservation of energy and momenta in the elementary processes, contrary to the idea of Einstein, Ehrenfest and Pauli,!°3 who retained complete conservation or — as Bohr called it — causality. In fact, the Compton effect had brought with it the verification of Einstein’s 1905 heuristic point of view: the light-quantum. It is rather remarkable that Einstein did not draw this consequence from his conception earlier, but Arthur Holly Compton and Peter Debye developed it independently in 1923. Einstein had struggled for many years with attempts at finding a crucial experimental test. In December 1921, he had proposed an experiment in a communication 34‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ to the Prussian Academy.'™ Einstein developed a tricky experiment by means of which he thought one could test the question whether the frequency of light emitted from atoms (the canal rays) did change with the angle @ between the direction of observation and the propagation of the source. He concluded that the wave theory would predict a dependence (Doppler effect) on the angle, but the light- quantum theory did not. Bothe and Geiger, who carried out the experiment, seemed to prove according to Einstein the light-quantum nature of light.!© Einstein’s derivation and conclusion was attacked by his friends Paul Ehrenfest and Max von Laue.'°6 In any case, it turned out that the whole experiment was not conclusive, or, more accurately, that Einstein’s assumption contained an error, in that both the light-quantum and light-wave emission should show Doppler effect.1° Fortunately, a little later Compton came up with his experiment. And the common belief of most scientists was that now the light- quantum concept had been proved.'® Still, Niels Bohr was not convinced and took up an idea which he had already expressed as early as 1921 in a lecture at the third Solvay Conference on Physics.'°? In this lecture, he first expressed doubts about the principles of conservation of energy and momentum in order to avoid the necessity of light-quanta.''° He repeated his ideas in greater detail in the paper ‘On the Application of the Quantum Theory to Atomic Structure, Part I’:''! he emphasized the fact that the concept of light-quanta was at variance with the problem of interference phenomena. ‘A general description of the phenomena, in which the laws of conservation of energy and momentum retain in detail their validity in their classical formulation, cannot be carried through.’"12 Niels Bohr was not isolated in his deviation from the idea of strict conservation of energy. Sommerfeld, in his 1922 edition of Atmomic Structure and Spectral Lines, had expressed similar ideas. In late 1923, John Slater arrived in Copenhagen and brought with 35Einstein, Physics and Reality him the idea of a ‘virtual’ field of radiation existing together with stationary states and causing the possible quantum transitions. This virtual field, by its very existence, could provide a statistical conservation of energy and momenta. But Bohr and Kramers thought differently: they preferred an altogether statistical conservation and actually formulated the paper.''? Slater intended to use the light- quantum as the central concept, but Bohr and Kramers decided to eliminate it altogether.'"4 Pascual Jordan, in his thesis, also tried to abandon Einstein's light-quantum theory." However, the experiments of Walther Bothe and Hans Geiger, in which they measured the coincidence between recoil electrons and the scattered X-rays, settled the question in favor of the Einstein- Compton-Debye theory.'!© A. H. Compton and A. W. Simon checked the relationship between the scattering angle of the X-rays and the recoil of the electrons. They found a strong correlation,""” in contrast to the prediction of Bohr, Kramers and Slater. Already in May 1924 Einstein wrote to Ehrenfest: ‘| reviewed the Bohr, Kramers, Slater paper at our colloquium the other day. This idea is an old acquaintance of mine, but | don’t consider it to be the real thing. Principal reasons: (1) Nature seems to adhere to the conservation laws (Franck—Hertz experiments, Stokes’s rule). Why should action-at-a-distance be an exception? (2) A cavity with reflecting walls containing radiation, in empty space that is free of radiation, would have to carry out an ever- increasing Brownian motion. (3) A final abandonment of strict causality is very hard for me to tolerate. (4) One would also almost have to require the existence of a virtual acoustic (elastic) radiation field for solids. For it is not easy to believe that quantum mechanics necessarily requires an electrical theory of matter as its foundation. 36‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ (5) The occurrence of ordinary scattering (not at the proper frequency of the molecules), which is above all standard for the optical behavior of bodies, fits badly into this scheme.’ The experiments of Bothe and Geiger, on the one hand, and of Compton and Simon, on the other, settled the question in favor of Einstein: ‘The results do not appear to be reconcilable with the view of the statistical production of recoil and photoelectrons proposed by Bohr, Kramers and Slater. They are, on the other hand, in direct support of the view that energy and momentum are conserved during the interaction between radiation and individual electrons." In a letter to Ehrenfest on 18 August 1925, Einstein remarked: ‘We both had no doubts about it.’?° Bohr also had to agree that the Bohr- Kramers theory had failed.'" A more drastic change in the foundation of the theory had to occur: a genuine quantum mechanics had to be developed. 2.4. Does Field Theory Present Possibilities for the Solution of the Quantum Problem? Under the heading of this question, Albert Einstein communicated to the Prussian Academy of Sciences a summary of the current problems of the quantum theory of the day. In his mind, they concentrated on the central question of the dual nature of radiation, which Einstein himself had fully realized at least since 1909. But, since about the same time, he had put his main efforts into the development of a general field theory of gravitation. This was, on the other hand, a natural enlargement of his 1905 ‘heuristic point of view’ concerning moving systems. On the other hand, it should provide a deeper understanding of the problem of matter. The molecular structure of matter had been fully established by that time. Similarly, the granular structure of light also appeared to be quite clear in Einstein’s mind. The problem was how to incorporate the ‘elementary quanta’ or molecules of matter and light into a 37Einstein, Physics and Reality single theory, because according to Einstein’s mass—energy equivalence there was no difference between matter in the form of material particles or radiation. This was the great question. Perhaps it could be resolved by a unified theory of gravitation? Thus he posed the quantum problem in the context of a field theory, as follows: ‘The initial state of an electron circulating around a hydrogen nucleus cannot be chosen freely, for this choice has to correspond to the quantum conditions. In general: not only the evolution in time but also the initial state is subject to laws. ‘Can this knowledge about the phenomena of Nature, which we ought to consider as quite general, be incorporated into a theory founded on partial differential equations? Of course, we just have to “over-determine” the field variables by equations. That means the number of differential equations has to be larger than the number of field variables determined by it.’?? Before 1910, Einstein had used most of his time to deal with the ‘quantum problem’: less than a dozen out of 35 contributions were devoted to the principle of relativity and, in most cases, they were smaller papers or notes. The center of his interest up to that time lay in the quantum domain. This ratio changed completely in the following years. Only seldom, and mostly in short notes, did he return to the quantum problems. Besides some applications such as the one to the laws of photochemical equivalence, only two contributions to the quantum problem were outstanding: these were the 1916/17 papers which introduced the ‘Einstein A and B coefficients,’ and the 1924-25 communications on the extension of Bose’s new statistics to the quantum theory of ideal gases. His emphasis now was on the problems of gravitational field theory and its extensions. From this fact one might draw two different conclusions. One is that Einstein got stuck with the quantum problem and wished to avoid it for some time; as he wrote to Sommerfeld in October 1912: ‘But | assure you that | cannot tell you anything new about the 38‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ quantum problem that is of interest... . | now work only on the problem of gravitation.’'23 On the other hand, his frequent return to the quantum problem, in particular in 1916 and later on, in 1924, does not support the opinion that he had abandoned the quantum problem altogether. Thus one might be inclined to believe that Einstein tacitly assumed the work in field theory of gravitation as a consequence of his endeavors in the fundamental question of ‘elementary quanta.’ From there he finally expected an answer to the great problems of fundamental physics. And the experience with this theory told him not to consider the finally achieved quantum mechanics as the real thing. It would be worthwhile to go over Einstein’s paper on relativity and to examine the indications and ideas that might be of relevance for the quantum problem. 2.4.1. A New Heuristic Viewpoint In his contribution to James Clerk Maxwell’s commemoration volume, Einstein wrote: ‘Since Maxwell's time, Physical Reality has been thought of as represented by continuous fields, governed by partial differential equations, and not capable of any mechanical interpretation. This change in the conception of Reality is the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton; but it must be confessed that the complete realization of the programme contained in this idea has so far by no means been attained. The successful physical systems that have been set up since then represent rather a compromise between these two programmes [of Newton and of Maxwell], and it is precisely this character of compromise that stamps them as temporary and logically incomplete, even though in their separate domains they have led to great advances. ‘Of these, Lorentz’s Theory of Electrons must first be mentioned, in which the field and the electric corpuscles appear side by side as complementary elements in the comprehension of reality. Then followed the Special and General Theory of Relativity, which, 39Einstein, Physics and Reality although based entirely on field-theory considerations, have not yet been able to dispense with the independent introduction of material particles and total differential equations.’'”4 After his two epoch-making fundamental papers, one concerning the heuristic viewpoint in the creation and transformation of light,'25 and the other on the random (Brownian) motion of particles in fluids,!76 Einstein contributed another work of the greatest importance to the ‘Einstein Volume’ of Annalen der Physik. In this longest of all three papers, entitled ‘The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,’'?” he united Maxwell’s equations with the principle of relativity. Although this paper did not seem to have anything to do with the question of elementary quanta, in Einstein’s mind it was linked with this topic, for it was in this paper that the first step had been taken to unite electron theory and the field theory of Maxwell’s equations. The two principles on which this work was based, i.e. the constancy of the velocity of light and the principle of relativity of coordinate systems moving with uniform velocity, had immediate consequences: ‘If a body emits the energy L in the form of radiation, then its mass is decreased by L/V? [V being the velocity of light]. At this point it is obviously essential that the energy pulled out of the body is transformed into the energy of radiation, thus we led to the general conclusion: The mass of a body is a measure of its energy changed in the same sense by L/9 x 10°, where the energy is measured in ergs and the mass in grams.'?8 In a later work he extended his considerations: ‘In this paper | now wish to show that the law [namely that the mass of a body depends on its energy content] is the necessary and sufficient condition for the validity of the law of conservation of the motion of the center-of-mass (at least in the first approximation) also in those cases in which, besides mechanical, also electrodynamical processes occur.''?9 in fact, his prediction was tested very soon, and by around 1909 the validity of Einstein’s law was more or less assured.'3° In 1906 Einstein discussed the fact that his law of the change of mass with energy had to be 40‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ favored because it stemmed from a theoretical system which covers a wide range of phenomena. Nevertheless he did not call it a theory. In his paper ‘Remarks on a Note by P. Ehrenfest,’"3'! which he submitted on 14 April 1907, he stated: ‘The principle of relativity or — more accurately expressed — the principle of relativity together with the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light has not been considered as a “closed system,” in fact, not even as a system at all, but merely as a heuristic device, which looked at per se only includes statements concerning rigid bodies, clocks and signals. Any further results that the theory of relativity yields extend only insofar as it demands relations between physical laws which otherwise seem to be independent of each other.’132 In the years between 1906 and 1908 the special theory of relativity was completed by Einstein together with his first collaborator J. Laub,'33 Hermann Minkowski and Max Planck in particular. At the Naturforscherversammlung in Salzburg in September 1909, it could be regarded as an established theory, to which Arnold Sommerfeld and others made contributions. It is remarkable that during the years between 1908 and 1911, Einstein mentioned the theory of relativity only marginally. This was the time in which he tried very hard to concentrate on the specific quantum problem, in which he addressed himself to the dualistic nature of light. But already in 1907, in his article ‘On the Principle of Relativity and Its Consequences’ for Johannes Starks’s Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und der Elektronik, he had prepared the ground for further research. In Section 5 of ‘The Relativity Principle and Gravitation,’ he remarked that one should state a general principle demanding the equivalence of a frame of reference which is uniformly accelerated and a homogeneous field of gravitation. He noted: ‘From the above one concludes that the light coming from the surface of the sun ... has a wavelength which is larger by two parts in a million from the light produced by the same substance on earth.’135 This effect, which was not measured before the Mdssbauer effect 4Einstein, Physics and Reality (1958) allowed one to obtain very sharp spectral lines, would, of course, serve to underline Einstein’s concept of the light-quantum, and the consequence which Einstein drew at that time was as important as the construction of the framework of the theory of general relativity. In the same article, Einstein predicted a change of the velocity of light in a gravitational potential @: it becomes larger, and a bending of light rays occurs in a strong gravitational field. Finally he remarked: The law ... that a quantity of energy E possesses a mass of the magnitude E/c? is therefore ... true not only for the inertial but also for the gravitating mass.’'>6 Here, for the first time, Einstein took into account the principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses, from which he was to build his general theory of gravitation. After his arrival in Prague, to take up his first chair of physics in spring 1911, Einstein concentrated his efforts on research in the theory of relativity. And, upon returning to the ETH in Zurich, he wrote to Sommerfeld (who had asked him about his progress in the quantum problem): ‘Your kind letter only adds to my feeling of uneasiness. But | assure you that | cannot say anything new with respect to the quantum problem that might interest you... . | am now completely occupied with the problem of gravitation.’13” 2.4.2. Foundations of the Theory of Gravitation In 1911, Albert Einstein restarted his work on the general theory of relativity by considering the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light. After a new calculation, he discovered already in his first paper that the bending of light in the gravitational field of the sun should be measurable.'8 In another paper, entitled ‘On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field,’ he derived the consequences from a static gravitational field on the electromagnetic and thermal processes.'39 In 1913, together with his old friend and former fellow student, Marcel Grossmann, who was now his colleague at the 42‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ ETH, Einstein wrote the great paper ‘On the Framework of a General Relativity Theory and a Theory of Gravitation.’ In this paper, Einstein wrote the physical part, while Grossmann formulated the mathematical framework. Einstein introduced this valiant attempt (Entwurf) by saying: ‘The theory presented in the following has originated from the conviction that the proportionality of inertial and gravitational masses of the bodies is an exactly valid law of nature, which has to be incorporated into the very foundations of theoretical physics. Already in some earlier papers | tried to express this conviction by the endeavor to reduce the gravitational to the inertial mass; this effort has led me to the hypothesis that an (infinitely small extended, homogeneous) field of gravitation can be replaced entirely by an accelerated state of the frame of reference.’'4° Einstein gave a report on his joint work with Grossmann on the general theory of relativity at two conferences. On 9 September 1913, he discussed the ‘Physical Foundations of the Theory of Gravitation’ at the jahresversammlung (annual assembly) of the Schweizer Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Frauenfeld, and in the same year he dealt with ‘The Present Status of the Problem of Gravitation’ at 85. Naturforscherversammlung in Vienna. At that time he had not yet moved to his position in Berlin, which would allow him to devote all of his time to research unencumbered by teaching and other obligations. In his talk in Vienna, Einstein presented his ‘scientific credo’ concerning the principles of general relativity. Besides the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses, he regarded as very probable and desirable the following points: the conservation of energy and momentum; the validity of special relativity at short distances; the fact that the laws of nature do not depend on the absolute value of the gravitational potential; and Mach’s principle, according to which the inertia of bodies is caused by other bodies. This last principle was not satisfied by the competing (scalar) theory of Gunnar Nordstrém, but in Einstein’s theory it became one of the 43Einstein, Physics and Reality guiding principles in his further efforts to construct the theory of gravitation. Einstein returned to this discussion in his later papers.'4! These presentations of his new theory may have been the final motivation for the Prussian authorities to offer him his extraordinary position in Berlin, and in April 1914 he moved there from Zurich. Immediately after arrival in Berlin, Einstein plunged into his work on the theory of gravitation. The proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Sciences contain the fruits of those years: ‘The Formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity’;'4? ‘Concerning the General Theory of Relativity’;'43 ‘Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General Theory of Relativity."'44 In the fourth communication of that most remarkable month of November 1915, on 25 November, Einstein finally remarked: ‘With that the general theory of relativity has been completed as a logical system. The postulate of relativity, which reduces the space-time coordinates to physically meaningless parameters, leads with compelling necessity to a well-defined theory of gravitation, which explains the perihelion motion of Mercury. On the other hand, the general postulate of relativity cannot reveal to us anything about the nature of other physical phenomena, which has not already become clear in the special theory of relativity./145.146 From this last statement, Einstein’s ambition became clear. He did not only like the ‘enchantment’ of the ‘method of absolute differential calculus’ (tensor calculus) — he demanded physical constraints on other phenomena as well.'47 But ‘any physical theory satisfying special relativity can be incorporated with the help of the absolute differential calculus into the system of general relativity theory; however, the latter does not give any criterion for the reliability of that theory.’'48 Nevertheless, the completed theory of general relativity allowed for important consequences. Einstein drew the first one in his communication of 22 June 1916, in which he introduced gravitational radiation. He said: ‘The atoms should not only radiate ... electromagnetic but also gravitational radiation, 44‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ though in a tiny amount. Since this might not be true in nature, it seems that the quantum theory will not only have to modify Maxwell's electrodynamics but also the new theory of gravitation." In his paper ‘Cosmological Considerations Concerning the Theory of General Relativity,’ he stated his belief in a closed universe.'*° Other problems included ‘Hamilton’s Principle and the Theory of General Relativity,"5' and the formulation of energy conservation in the new theory.'5? In a short note to Naturwissenschaften, he could finally report the successful result obtained by Arthur Stanley Eddington’s expedition to test the bending of light of fixed stars by the sun.'53 2.4.3. Towards the Unified Field Theory In his communication, entitled ‘Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Role in the Structure of Elementary Material Particles?’, Einstein said: ‘Neither Newton’s [law of gravitation] nor the relativistic gravitational theory has brought along progress in the theory of the constitution of matter up to now. In contrast to that it will be demonstrated in the following that indications exist that the elementary entities forming the bricks of atoms are held together by gravitational forces.’15+ With these remarks Einstein introduced his efforts that would concern him for the rest of his life: to unify all physical theories and explain the quantum nature of reality. Gustav Mie, David Hilbert and, especially, Hermann Weyl, had tried to construct a theory in which gravitation and electromagnetism were combined, and Einstein entered into this competition vigorously. In the above-mentioned paper,'®4 he introduced a new set of field equations: the energy tensor contains three quarters of the electromagnetic field, and one quarter is due to gravitation. But in this theory not enough conditions were given to consider the problem of elementary quanta, which he regarded as spherical distributions of electric charge. In a later paper, he found further constraints.15 And in 1923 he considered Eddington’s generalization as a good 45Einstein, Physics and Reality starting point for his own efforts.'5° These efforts were connected with the so-called ‘affine field theory,” but in 1923 he remarked: ‘A singularity-free electron is not given by these equations.’1°8 Two years later, in 1925, a new theory emerged; during these two years, Einstein had not only formulated quantum statistics and its application to ideal gases, but had made numerous forays to develop his field theory. In the ‘Unified Field Theory of Gravitation and Electricity,’ an overdetermination of the system of equations was possible, i.e. more field equations than field parameters existed.'°° Einstein regarded this overdetermination as a prerequisite for the existence of elementary quanta in field theory. But the question remained: Did a centrally symmetrical electrical charge exist which was not a singularity? Another problem was connected with the fact that in his theory the masses of positive and negative electrons had to be equal. This was a difficult problem, since only the proton existed at that time as a candidate for the positive electron. Einstein noted: ‘The recognition seems to me essential that an explanation of the inequality of the two electricities is only possible if one attributes a direction of duration to the time and uses this for the definition of deciding physical quantities. In this the electrodynamics is essentially different from gravitation; therefore the goal of uniting electrodynamics with the laws of gravitation does not seem to be justified to me anymore.''© This problem discouraged Einstein very considerably and his following papers on this topic did not appear before 1927.16 However, he soon returned to the basic problem as to how to formulate the laws of motion within the field theory. He noted: ‘All attempts of the last few years to describe the elementary particles of matter by continuous fields have failed. After many fruitless attempts, about which we do not wish to talk here, a strong suspicion has grown that this is not the correct way to explain the existence of material particles.'6? ‘Thus one is forced to consider elementary particles as singular points or singular world lines. This is also suggested by the fact that 46‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ the equation of the pure gravitational field as well as the equations supplemented by the Maxwellian electromagnetic field possess simple centrally symmetric solutions which demonstrate a singularity. It now seems to be very probable that the law of motion of the singularities is determined fully by the field equations and the character of singularities, and no additional assumptions are necessary.’163 Einstein’s work proceeded further in 1927, and he stated on 24 November: ‘Most physicists today are convinced that the fact of [the existence of] quanta excludes the validity of a field theory in the conventional sense of the word. But this conviction is not based on a sufficient knowledge of the consequences of the field theory. Therefore it seems to me to be necessary to pursue further consequences concerning the motion of the singularities for the present, although another path has opened by a far-reaching command of the numerical relations by quantum mechanics.’16+ In 1928 Einstein proposed a ‘New Possibility for a Unified Field Theory of Gravitation and Electricity’.'°5 In this the concept of Riemannian geometry was generalized, and was connected by the so-called ‘distant parallelism.’'® As Einstein noted: ‘The great attraction of the theory lies for me in its unity and in the high (allowed) overdetermination of the field variables. | have also been able to demonstrate that the field equations lead in the first approximation to equations which correspond to the Newton-Poisson theory of gravitation and to Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field. Nonetheless, | am far from claiming the physical validity of the equations thus derived. The reason is that | have not succeeded in deriving the laws of motion for corpuscles.’'®” And later: ‘The most important question regarding the (exact) field equations is for the existence of singularity-free electrons which could describe the electrons and protons.’'®® However, soon thereafter he could solve, together with W. Mayer, the central electrical problem,'®° but the singular solution was not influenced by the field equations. Thus one had to look for regular solutions.'7° 47Einstein, Physics and Reality By the end of the year, Einstein and Mayer had changed their theory. They succeeded formally (like Kaluza in his five-dimensional theory) to unite gravitation and electromagnetism.'71 They noted, however, ‘that it does not provide at present an understanding of the structure of corpuscles as well as the facts summarized in quantum theory.’'72 As the end of the year 1932 approached, Einstein and Mayer developed a new approach including ‘semi-vectors.’'73 The semi- vectors were generalized four-component spinors and were preferred ‘because apart from the possibility (shown in the previous paper) of building them into the edifice of general relativity, which is not known in a genuine spinor theory, from the point of view of spinors we cannot understand why there exist in nature exactly two different elementary inertial masses with (apart from the sign) equally large electric charge.’174 With the change of the political situation in Germany and in Europe at large, Albert Einstein settled in Princeton in 1933 and pursued field-theoretic problems with new collaborators: Nathan Rosen, Leopold Infeld, Banesh Hoffmann, Peter Bergmann and Valentine Bargmann. They treated the problem of motion of particles in the framework of the general relativity theory,'75 Kaluza’s theory," and finally Einstein changed to a new approach — bivectors,'77 because Einstein and Pauli had demonstrated in a paper that no regular stationary solutions existed in the so-far-known unified field theories.'78 In the new theory, a bivector gj, replaces the metric. But 12 the search for the solutions of old problems — Does a regular solution exist? Is the particle’s motion determined by field equations? Is its motion quantized? — continued.'79 In Appendix II of his book The Meaning of Relativity (5 edition, Princeton, 1955), one finds the last expression of Einstein’s opinion on these questions. He wrote: ‘For the present edition | have completely revised the “Generalization of Gravitation Theory” under the title “Relativity Theory of the Non-symmetric Field.” For | have 48‘The Crisis in Theoretical Physics’ succeeded — in part in collaboration with my assistant Blruria] Kaufman — in simplifying the derivations as well as the form of the field equations. The whole theory becomes thereby more transparent, without changing its content.'®° There he expressed his opinion concerning a field theory: ‘A field theory is not yet completely determined by the system of field equations. Should one admit the appearance of singularities? Should one postulate boundary conditions? As to the first question, it is my opinion that singularities must be excluded. It does not seem reasonable to me to introduce into a continuum theory points (or lines, etc.) for which the field equations do not hold. Moreover, the introduction of singularities is equivalent to postulating boundary conditions (which are arbitrary from the point of view of the field equations) on “surfaces” which closely surround singularities. Without such a postulate the theory is much too vague. In my opinion, the answer to the second question is that the postulation of boundary conditions is indispensable.’®! Having made the specific remarks concerning the field theory, Einstein turned to the most important question of his life: ‘Is it conceivable that a field theory permits one to understand the atomic and quantum structure of reality? Almost everybody will answer this question with “no.” But | believe that at the present time nobody knows anything reliable about it. This is so because we cannot judge in what manner and how strongly the exclusion of singularities reduces the manifold of solutions. We do not possess any method at all to derive systematically solutions that are free of singularities.’82 ‘Approximation methods are of no avail since one never knows whether or not there exists to a particular approximate solution an exact solution free of singularities. For this reason we cannot at present compare the content of a nonlinear field theory with experience. Only a significant progress in the mathematical methods can help here. At the present time the opinion prevails that a field theory must first, by “quantization,” be transformed into a statistical theory of field probabilities according to more or less established 49Einstein, Physics and Reality tules. | see in this method only an attempt to describe relationships of an essentially nonlinear character by linear methods.’1824 ‘One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the description of reality. But nobody knows how to obtain the basis of such a theory.’1826 503 Letters on Wave Mechanics On 16 April 1926, Albert Einstein wrote to Erwin Schrédinger: ‘Dear Colleague: Professor Planck pointed your theory out to me with well-justified enthusiasm, and then I studied it, too, with the greatest interest.’ And he immediately proceeded to point out an ‘error’ in Schrédinger’s first communication to Annalen der Physik. He wanted to replace the fundamental equation in Schrédinger’s work by another. But this was due to a misreading by Einstein. Still, his objection made Schrédinger ‘happy.’ Einstein concluded his letter by saying: ‘The idea of your article shows real genius.’1®> In fact, the response to Schrédinger’s theory, in particular from renowned senior colleagues, was very favorable. Here seemed to be a theory which was clearly understandable and worked with partial differential equations. For instance, Max Planck remarked in a letter to Schrédinger on 2 April 1926: ‘I read your article the way an inquisitive child listens in suspense to the solution of a puzzle that he has been bothered about for a long time, and | am delighted with the beauties that are evident to the eye, but | have to study it more closely in detail to be able to grasp it completely."°4 And the old Hendrik Antoon Lorentz responded on 27 May 1926: ‘I am finally getting around to answering your letter and thanking you very much 51Einstein, Physics and Reality for kindly sending me the proof-sheets of your three articles, all of which | have in fact received. Reading these has been a real pleasure to me,’185 3.1. The Real Schrédinger Equation In his first letter to Schrddinger, mentioned above, Einstein wrote: ‘In the process [of reading your article] one doubt has arisen which | hope you can dispel for me. If | have two systems that are not coupled to each other at all, and if £, is an allowed energy value of the first system and £ an allowed energy value of the second, then £,+ &)=£ must be an allowed energy value of the total system consisting of both of them. | do not, however, understand how your equation , 2 div grad @ + Fe-o* =0 is to express this property. So that you can see what | mean, | put down another equation that would satisfy this condition: E-@ 186 div grad@ + g = 0. From this letter one immediately notices the typical reaction of Einstein. First, he did not study too carefully the papers of others. But he immediately understood the first tests of a new theory, and this enabled him to guess the correct formula at once. Moreover, this apparent ‘mistake’ of Schrédinger’s did not change Einstein’s appreciation for the work of his younger colleague. Finally, Einstein at that time was used to playing formally with theories, but he needed some time to understand fully the physics behind them. As he wrote to Schrodinger: ‘It also seems to me that the equation ought to have such a structure that the integration constant of the energy does not appear in it; this also holds for the 52Letters on Wave Mechanics equation I have constructed, but despite that | have not been able to assign a physical significance to it, a matter on which | have not reflected sufficiently." But Einstein thought more about Schrédinger’s theory, which seemed to him to be very ingenious, and in a letter on 22 April 1926 he acknowledged that his proposed formula was actually contained in Schrédinger’s paper. ‘So my letter was superfluous,’ he remarked. '87 To Schrédinger, Einstein’s letter meant a great deal: ‘Your approval and Planck’s mean more to me than that of half the world. Besides, the whole thing would certainly have not originated yet, and perhaps never would have (I mean, not from me), if | had not had the importance of de Broglie’s idea really brought home to me by your second paper on gas degeneracy.’'®® And Einstein’s guessing of his formula pleased him even more. ‘The objection in your last letter makes me even happier. It is based on an error in memory. The equation F2 div grady + Peso” =0 is not mine, as a matter of fact, but my equation really runs exactly like the one that you constructed free-hand from the two requirements of the “additivity” of the quantum levels and the nonappearance of the absolute value of the energy: E-9 div grady + 82? y =0. ‘Your very basic requirements are therefore fulfilled. | am, moreover, very grateful for this error in memory because it was through your remark that | first became consciously aware of the formal apparatus. Besides, one’s confidence in a formulation always increases if one — and especially you — constructs the same thing afresh from a few fundamental requirements.’189 53Einstein, Physics and Reality Einstein’s short reply to Schrédinger’s effusive letter was: ‘I am convinced that you have made a decisive advance with your formulation of the quantum condition, just as | am equally convinced that the Heisenberg—Born route is off the track. The same condition of the system additivity is not satisfied in their method.°° 3.2. On the Uncertainty Relation About two years later, Einstein wrote to Schrédinger again, this time about the Heisenberg-Bohr interpretation of quantum mechanics. ‘The Heisenberg—Bohr tranquillizing philosophy — or religion? — is so delicately contrived that, for the time being, it provides a gentle pillow for the true believer from which he cannot be very easily aroused.’19! In late 1927, at the fifth Solvay Conference on Physics in Brussels, Einstein and Bohr had been great opponents.'?? Planck was too old, and Lorentz had never taken a very strong stand against the quantum theory after his lecture in Rome in 1908 at the International Congress of Mathematicians. Thus the most prominent opponent of the statistical description of nature had been Einstein. On the other hand, a distinguished physicist of his own generation, Niels Bohr, was the great defender of the new quantum mechanics and its acausal interpretation, not so much the brilliant young people like Heisenberg, Dirac and Pauli; nor was the systematic, dogmatic and middle-aged Max Born, whose statistical interpretation had initiated the ‘revolution’ and who was a dogged and spirited fighter like Bohr. Schrédinger, once overrun by the powerful Bohr during his visit to Copenhagen at Bohr’s invitation, had also not been a great vocal opponent of the ‘Heisenberg-Bohr tranquillizing philosophy,’ much as he disliked it, though he was most in a position to assist Einstein. On 30 May 1928, Schrédinger wrote a letter to Einstein and informed him about a controversy he had had with Bohr. Schrédinger 54Letters on Wave Mechanics had claimed that Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation would not allow one to determine neighboring states of a quantum system accurately: ‘If we quantize a molecule that is reflected back and forth along the segment /, then we have § pax = p pdx = 2ip = nh, ie py = ah 2n Neighboring quantized values of the momentum therefore differ from each other by so little (namely, only by h/2/) that even with the largest possible uncertainty in the coordinate (Ax = /), | cannot gain enough accuracy in the momentum to allow me to distinguish between neighboring quantum states. Bohr had replied that he did not understand the application of the uncertainty principle to a gas molecule because there the momentum conjugate to the coordinate had no unique value. But Einstein understood Schrédinger’s point and answered: ‘I think you have hit the nail on the head.’'%! And he proceeded: ‘But the uncertainty relation interpreted that way does not appear to be very illuminating. The thing was invented for free particles, and it fits only that case in a natural way. Your claim that the concepts p, g will have to be given up, if they can only claim such a “shaky” meaning, seems to me fully justified.1" Einstein himself tried to make his way through the uncertainty relations. For instance, on 30 November 1931 he reported at the Physics Colloquium in Berlin a thought experiment, in which a finite ray or signal of light is sent from a box to a faraway mirror; it returns after the reflection, but the interesting fact is that one can determine either the time of flight accurately or the energy of the light. 3.3. Are There Quantum Jumps? In an article entitled ‘Are There Quantum Jumps?’, Erwin Schrédinger wrote: ‘But in every case, however complicated the actual motion 55Einstein, Physics and Reality is, it can be mathematically analyzed as being the superposition of a discrete series of comparatively simple “proper vibrations,” each of which goes on with a quite definite frequency.’'4 For Schrédinger the great question always was to understand the meaning of ‘discreteness.’ After all, the quantum systems could be described with the continuous wave equation, and the quantization turned out to be a problem of proper [eigen-]values, of some resonance. Schrédinger was vigorously attacking the point of view of energy packets (quanta), because everything could be achieved by the wave equation. He was further criticizing the usual description of interacting systems by attributing a free energy to its parts and an interaction energy to both. ‘Summarizing: the current view, which privileges the “sharp energy states,” is self-contradictory, anyhow in the language it uses.’195 It is of interest to complement this view of the older Schrédinger with that of his colleague Louis de Broglie, whose equation he so often quoted. In his article ‘Will Quantum Physics Remain Indeterministic?’, de Broglie stated: ‘To my knowledge, three possible interpretations of this dualism have been offered. One interpretation, which seems to be the one favored by Schrédinger, simply denies the reality of dualism, claiming that waves alone have a physical significance in the classical sense. While the propagation of waves may occasionally give rise to corpuscular appearances, these are, in fact, no more than appearances. ... Now, the other two interpretations to which | have alluded are, in fact, based on this duality but look at it from quite different points of view. ‘The one to which | myself subscribed until 1928 attaches a concrete physical meaning in the traditional sense to the wave- particle dualism, and considers the particle as a sort of central singularity within a continuous wave phenomenon. The problem then arises why wave mechanics can successfully operate with continuous waves lacking the singularities of the continuous classical waves. | shall outline my attempted solution below. 56Letters on Wave Mechanics ‘In the second interpretation of the wave-particle dualism, particles and continuous waves are considered as being complementary facets of reality, in Bohr’s sense.”!9° By 1927, de Broglie had proposed the double solution theory, in which there existed two objects: a singular wave solution u which represented the particle, and an accompanying continuous wave y whose square represented the probability of finding a particle at a given place, etc. In 1927, de Broglie had thought of obtaining his solutions from the linear Schrédinger equation. In the early 1950s ‘closer contact with the general theory of relativity ... have since persuaded me that the real equation of propagation of a u wave must be nonlinear, like Einstein’s gravitational equations.’'97 But the discussions at the fifth Solvay Conference turned de Broglie’s thoughts around to subscribing ‘to Bohr and Heisenberg’s probability interpretation, which | have expounded ever since, though experiments have convinced me that it is full of pitfalls.19° In 1952, David Bohm published his article in which he re-examined the pilot-wave theory and proposed the introduction of hidden variables. These would not be excluded by John von Neumann’s famous ‘proof.’ De Broglie concluded: ‘Today the explanatory value of wave mechanics seems largely to have vanished. This sad fact is, | think, generally agreed upon, and even the partisans of probability are striving, with little apparent success, to introduce new and ever more abstract concepts, farther and farther removed from the images of classical physics... .'199 It might be worthwhile to add here a few remarks about Planck’s point of view. In his opinions he had been close to those of Max von Laue, whom Einstein regarded, in his letter to Schrédinger on 22 December 1950, besides himself and Schrédinger, as the only contemporary physicist who saw that ‘one cannot get around the assumption of reality — if only one is honest.”’2 In two late papers Planck looked for an ‘Attempt to Form a Synthesis Between Wave Mechanics and Corpuscular Mechanics’;2°' he tried to relate the 57Einstein, Physics and Reality wave mechanics and the classical mechanics of the particle to each other by taking the limit h > 0. And he proposed a modification of the Schrédinger wave mechanics because: ‘However small one may assume the quantum of action to be, a corpuscle never arises from a wave packet, at least not for a long time; on the contrary, each wave packet has to be dissolved in a short time, whereas the corpuscle retains its atomic structure for ever. Therefore, one concludes that the corpuscular mechanics contains certain features which are not contained in wave mechanics in its present form.’2°" 584 Epistemological Discussion with Einstein: Does Quantum Mechanics Describe Reality Correctly? Niels Bohr recalled: ‘In the very lively discussions on such points {at the 1927 Solvay Conference], which Lorentz, with his openness of mind and balanced attitude, managed to conduct in fruitful directions, ambiguities of terminology presented great difficulties for agreement regarding the epistemological problems. This situation was humorously expressed by Ehrenfest, who wrote on the blackboard the sentence from the Bible, describing the confusion of languages that disturbed the building of the tower of Babel. ‘The exchange of views started at the sessions were eagerly continued within smaller groups during the evenings, and to me the opportunity of having longer talks with Einstein and Ehrenfest was a most welcome experience. Reluctance to renounce deterministic description in principle was especially expressed by Einstein, who challenged us with arguments suggesting the possibility of taking the interaction between the atomic objects and the measuring instruments more explicitly into account. Although our answers 59Einstein, Physics and Reality regarding the futility of this prospect did not convince Einstein, who returned to the problem at the next [Solvay Conference, 1930], the discussions were an inspiration to explore further the situation as regards analysis and synthesis in quantum physics and its analogue in other fields of human knowledge, where customary terminology implies attention to the conditions under which experience is gained.’202 The discussions between Einstein and Bohr, of which there exists almost no contemporary written record since they took place mainly outside the regular sessions, have become available through a later report which Niels Bohr gave in 1949 and contributed to the 70th birthday volume in honor of Einstein, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp.2® Since this account was given so much later by one of the major participants, it might be regarded as partly one-sided, on the one hand, and presenting a more elaborate view of Bohr’s thoughts and arguments than may have actually been presented in 1927, on the other. Thus Einstein’s arguments might look weaker than they actually were at that time, and we ought not to regard his return to some of his arguments at the 1930 Solvay Conference as expressing a stubborn mind. In order to reconstruct the original atmosphere of these highly important discussions, let us briefly give an account of the 1927 Solvay Conference and then proceed to the Bohr-Einstein dialogue. 4.1. The Fifth Solvay Conference (1927) In his introduction to the general discussion at the fifth Solvay Conference, H. A. Lorentz remarked: ‘We want to represent the phenomena by an image in our mind.’204 The fifth Solvay Conference was held in Brussels from 24 to 29 October 1927, with H. A. Lorentz as President for the last time. Among the participants were M. Planck, A. Einstein, M. Knudsen, P. Langevin and M. Curie, who had already attended the first conference in 1911. Besides a few distinguished researchers like C. T. R. Wilson, A. H. Compton, 60Epistemological Discussion with Einstein W. L. Bragg, |. Langmuir and O. W. Richardson, who had made important contributions to gathering empirical facts, the entire avant- garde who had created the new quantum mechanics was present: L. de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, P. A. M. Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Hendrik A. Kramers and Niels Bohr. From the intermediate generation, P. Debye and P. Ehrenfest, who had also made major contributions to the development of quantum physics, took part, as did R. H. Fowler, the theoretical leader of the Cambridge school. In this illustrious list, only Pascual Jordan and Arnold Sommerfeld were missing. The reports presented at the fifth Solvay Conference may be divided into two classes: certain specific topics, and an almost complete discussion of quantum mechanics by its major protagonists. Among the specific topics, talks were given by W. L. Bragg on ‘Reflexions of X-Rays’ and A. H. Compton on ‘Electromagnetic Theory of Radiation.’ But the major portion of this remarkable conference was spent on the presentation of the various aspects of quantum mechanics. This section was opened by L. de Broglie with a lecture on ‘The New Dynamics of Quanta.’ Louis de Broglie had developed the wave picture of matter in several papers since 1922, culminating in his thesis presented in Paris in November 1924. Since that time he had worked on the interpretation of his fundamental equations and the one on which Schrédinger had founded wave mechanics. In particular, de Broglie discussed the true nature of the guiding wave of material particles. After Max Born had developed the statistical interpretation of Schrédinger’s wave function, it became clear to him that it would not represent reality in the sense one knew from classical physics. But there did exist perhaps another solution to the dynamical equation — maybe properly generalized — which did not have the disadvantages of the Schrédinger wave, which perhaps represented the particle and its position at all times directly. This then could be a singular solution to the dynamical equations of motion. Between this singular solution to the wave equation and the Schrodinger 61Einstein, Physics and Reality wave function y, there should be a relation which allows one to take all the advantageous features of the wave function and transfer them to the singular solution which represents the reality of matter. Louis de Broglie then discussed the most recent diffraction experiments with electron beams and stated that they favored his new point of view. The most serious objection to de Broglie’s new approach to the nature of the quantum — it was only a tentative approach because he did not actually have his singular solution derived in a consistent manner from the wave equation — was raised by W. Pauli in the general discussion. He discussed a problem treated by Enrico Fermi: the impact of a particle with a rotator in the plane of motion of the particle in wave mechanics.?° If one would treat the same problem in de Broglie’s new theory ‘it does not seem to me that the result would be compatible with the postulate of the quantum theory, namely that the rotator would also be in a quantum state after the impact.? Though de Broglie did not agree with Pauli’s conclusion, he admitted later on that Pauli’s objection had bothered him.?07 Also, Schrédinger, who did not wish to attribute too much ‘reality’ to the particle picture, turned against de Broglie’s theory. Erwin Schrodinger presented his own views in his report on ‘The Wave Mechanics.’ In particular, he talked about the interpretation of multidimensional wave functions. By that was meant the following. One can interpret the Schrédinger function of one particle related in some way to a spatial density of this particle. This kind of space— time interpretation of the Schrédinger function is still possible in a two-particle system, but then the ‘interpretation’ breaks down for systems containing more than three particles. Schrédinger, who wished to retain the wave picture as the essential physical concept, tried to keep the three-dimensional interpretation of his wave functions. But his constructions did not convince the quantum- mechanicians like Born and Heisenberg. A problem of N particles, Born noted, will have an eigenvalue problem of the order of 03” 62Epistemological Discussion with Einstein dimensions and it cannot be seen how it should reduce to 23 dimensions. But Schrodinger expressed the hope that the degeneracy brought in by symmetry principles and the restriction will lead to the substantiation of his interpretation. The principal ‘technical’ report on the new quantum mechanics was presented in a joint contribution of Max Born and Werner Heisenberg on ‘The Quantum Mechanics.’ There the mathematical method of matrix mechanics was given together with the transformation theory and its interpretation as well as the transition to wave mechanics, together with the immediate interpretation of the wave function which followed from the very manner of the transition. Also, a mathematically and conceptually consistent derivation of the uncertainty relation was presented, and finally the new applications, the problem of statistics and the the whole gamut of progress were treated. Max Born concluded his lecture by mentioning that one could not consider all problems as solved within the new. framework, especially the relativistic problems, but the nondeterministic and probabilistic features would persist despite all the later developments.20 After this exhaustive report it remained for Niels Bohr to present the wider philosophical aspects and to ponder about the fundamental concepts in his famous lecture on ‘The Quantum Postulate and the New Development of Atomistics.’ He started his report by saying: ‘In discussing the physical significance of the methods developed in quantum theory in the last [few] years, | would like to present the following general remarks concerning the description of principles which are the basis of the description of the atomic phenomena; these remarks may perhaps serve to reconcile the different viewpoints in this domain.’29 Bohr divided his report into seven sections. In the first he discussed the postulate of quanta and causality. The description of phenomena is based on observations. The quantum postulate signifies that each observation exerts an influence on the physical system that cannot 63Einstein, Physics and Reality be neglected. In this process the notions of time and space lose their immediate sense, as does the usual principle of causality. ‘In reality,’ he continued, ‘the postulate of quanta places the description of quantum phenomena before elaborating a “theory of complementarity,” in which the absence of contradictions cannot be judged other than in estimating the possibilities of observations. In describing the phenomena of electromagnetic radiation, the two dualistic aspects express the “complementary” features of nature.’2'© In the second part, Bohr talked about the quantum of action and the new kinematics. This implies the existence of uncertainty relations, which can be extended to the relativistic theory. They express the limitations of classical concepts concerning space, time and causality. ‘This state of affairs will be considered as a simple symbolic expression of the complementary nature of the description in space, time and the application of causality.’2"" Now the problems of the description of radiation phenomena could be resolved. It also solved the problem of particle identity. In the third section, Bohr turned to the problem of measurement in the quantium theory and discussed Heisenberg’s examples?’? and others like the tracks in Wilson cloud chambers, which were consistent with the description developed in quantum mechanics. In the section on the correspondence principle, Bohr established the connection between quantum mechanics and his former work in 1918. He discussed the wave-mechanical description of atomic phenomena according to de Broglie and Schrédinger. The relations between the Schrédinger equation and the corresponding classical equation were purely formal in nature. Bohr remarked: ‘In the wave- mechanical equation, time and space as well as energy and momentum are applied in a purely formal manner.’2!3 And further: ‘In the interaction problem the desire to represent the facts intuitively conforms with the images in time and space is not justified at all. In fact, all our knowledge concerning the properties of atoms, as far as it does not refer to the motion of the entire system, is based on their 64